Let's Talk About Media

goldfly said:
Well, we can start with the definition since I’m guessing you don’t know what it means

gas·light

gerund or present participle: gaslighting
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.


He literally described Rush and the cult he built and what the maga movement is

He is trying to say the other side is everything that is really themselves and what they are doing. It’s so crazy you question if this is reality cause it’s so stupid you dumb cunt
Click to expand...

you should re-read this post

its the words of a mentally unwell person
 
Nice of you to avoid my point of clutching pearls though about rush and trying to spin it elsewhere instead of just admitting he was vile and you shouldn’t be surprised people just don’t forget the hate he built all cause he died
 
it’s the internet cunt

Can’t beat someone up over it.

Back to watching this movie though.
 
BTW, ain't it great that sturg33 was able to predict that goldy's mom would be fine based on data and science?

and goldy chose liberal fear to be irrationally scared based on nothing but propaganda

follow the science dummy. i can help you if you needed
 
sturg33 said:
Your boyfriend looks good...

[TW]1362637400216801282[/TW]
Click to expand...

sturg33 said:
BTW, ain't it great that sturg33 was able to predict that goldy's mom would be fine based on data and science?

and goldy chose liberal fear to be irrationally scared based on nothing but propaganda

follow the science dummy. i can help you if you needed
Click to expand...

Man

Come back to see what pathetic **** you replied with after the movie

And it’s a level even lower than I was imagining from the little sniveling piece of **** that you are

Congrats on that.
 
Jaw said:
[tw]1362486478199259140[/tw]
Click to expand...

I'm gonna do a radical experiment here and offer an attempt at nuance.

Let's say there is a wave of violence against Chinese people in Oakland. And most of the violence is being perpetrated by black people. If I were advising the media on how to cover this, I would say they should in specific instances include a description (or better yet video or still picture) of the perpetrator. But they should not generally say most of these attacks are by black people. To do so is to contribute to the stigmatization of black people, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the attacks.

Let's move to a somewhat different scenario. Let's say the attacks are by people associated with a movement or ideology. Let's say for the sake of discussion this group is known as the Black Power Movement or the Black Panthers. If I were advising media covering this I would say they should share with their readers or viewers the information they have about the affiliation of the attackers to the Black Power Movement or Black Panthers.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I'm gonna do a radical experiment here and offer an attempt at nuance.

Let's say there is a wave of violence against Chinese people in Oakland. And most of the violence is being perpetrated by black people. If I were advising the media on how to cover this, I would say they should in specific instances include a description (or better yet video or still picture) of the perpetrator. But they should not generally say most of these attacks are by black people. To do so is to contribute to the stigmatization of black people, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the attacks.

Let's move to a somewhat different scenario. Let's say the attacks are by people associated with a movement or ideology. Let's say for the sake of discussion this group is known as the Black Power Movement or the Black Panthers. If I were advising media covering this I would say they should share with their readers or viewers the information they have about the affiliation of the attackers to the Black Power Movement or Black Panthers.
Click to expand...

So how would you describe CNN's "white nationalist" boogeymen, and how would you describe the rioters who appeared, burned, assaulted, and looted under cover of a multitude of BLM protests?
 
We would also need a concrete definition of white nationalists and understand how each accusation ties into that definition.

White nationalism exists. The left is being incredibly lazy, or diabolical depending on your level of conspiracy theoryness, by labeling effectively everything as white nationalism.
 
Jaw said:
So how would you describe CNN's "white nationalist" boogeymen, and how would you describe the rioters who appeared, burned, assaulted, and looted under cover of a multitude of BLM protests?
Click to expand...

You would have to direct me to what it is CNN ran. I think it is perfectly ok (see my post above) to run a piece on the FBI devoting more resources to stopping violence by white nationalists or to note that violence by white supremacist groups is on the rise. If violence by left-wing groups were rising, a piece on that would be entirely appropriate as well.

We've had similar discussions in recent years about Muslims and Islamic extremists. How do you cover activity by Islamic extremists without tarring Muslims. It can be done.
 
Last edited:
The incoming "war on (domestic) terror" under the guise of stopping white nationalist... will impact everybody in this country
 
nsacpi said:
You would have to direct me to what it is CNN ran. I think it is perfectly ok (see my post above) to run a piece on the FBI devoting more resources to stopping violence by white nationalists.
Click to expand...

Your post above seemed to say that descriptions of individuals and names of organizations were appropriate, but that racial generalities were not. Specifically:

But they should not generally say most of these attacks are by black people. To do so is to contribute to the stigmatization of black people, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the attacks.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement and then support using the term "white nationalists" in the next post.
 
Jaw said:
Your post above seemed to say that descriptions of individuals and names of organizations were appropriate, but that racial generalities were not. Specifically:

But they should not generally say most of these attacks are by black people. To do so is to contribute to the stigmatization of black people, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the attacks.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement and then support using the term "white nationalists" in the next post.
Click to expand...

To run a story on violent crime by white people is not kosher. To run one about violent crime by people motivated by white supremacist or white nationalist ideology is ok.
 
It’s odd that when the perpetrators of racial attacks aren’t white that we never mention their race. Black people have been responsible for the majority of attacks against Asians in Cali and Jews in NY.

The fact that we can’t say what everyone knows shows how unserious these people are in protecting Asians/Jews for the sake of their well being.

It’s all based on a racial grievance scale. If you perpetrate crimes against those who are higher on the racial grievance scale than it’s a big story. In the other direction it’s effectively ignored.

Unserious people.
 
nsacpi said:
To run a story on violent crime by white people is not kosher. To run one about violent crime by people motivated by white supremacist or white nationalist ideology is ok.
Click to expand...

And those labels are applied after confirming their political ideologies right?
 
thethe said:
And those labels are applied after confirming their political ideologies right?
Click to expand...

Well if someone is busting windows most reporters are not going to go up to the guy and ask him for his ideological affiliation. I wouldn't ask a reporter to do that if it might be unsafe. But there is a reportorial obligation to try and find as much information as possible about the motivations of people committing violent acts. It is an important part of the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top